posted December 08, 2010 17:16
The US Department of State is proud to announce it will host events for World Press Freedom Day

quote:From TFA:we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

You couldn't make this sh1te up!

/me wonders if Julian Assange is invited.

GrumpySteenMember # 170

posted December 08, 2010 17:54
I think this goes past 11.

XanthineMember # 736

posted December 08, 2010 18:01
What's interesting to me is how the world more of less took it in stride when the Afghan war documents came out and when everything prior to that came out. But publish diplomatic mail and all of a sudden the world wants his head. And that's fair. Diplomacy works in part because of its secrets...and when diplomacy works, peace is kept. Even so, it's not a good sign that a Swiss bank closed the guy's account because they decided he was too suspicious to handle and that Canadians are suggesting drone strikes. Even though the Canadian in question backed away from the comment, it still happened...not what I expected from our moderate and peaceful northern neighbor.

On the other hand, I did find it reassuring when the mainstream news sites reported that China is not going to back up NKorea if the cease-fire comes to a catastrophic end or if NK finally just collapses. I found it interesting that, despite all public statements, the heads of state in the Mideast want us to do something and do something soon about Iran. The news about Yemen was pretty blah - you'd have to have your head firmly wedged up your ass to really believe the US wasn't the one dropping the bombs over there. The news of a Putin/Berlusconi bromance was entertaining as hell.

As an aside, I'm actually not allowed to download any US classified info from WikiLeaks because it's still technically classified and I don't have a clearance (nor do I want one; from all accounts those things are a pain). Seriously. A directive went out to all executive branch employees. But you know, even before my job was under threat I still didn't want to go there. It's not cool to read other people's mail. So what I know is only what I've gleaned from secondary sources. And I'm finding my ethics very much in the way because I've heard that the write-up on that wedding in Dagestan is an excellent read.

BTW, the person believed to be responsible for the leak is in jail and was in jail before Assange released this latest batch. He's facing treason charges. As for Assange's arrest, the cynic in me wonders if Assange isn't safer in jail. Not all the people mad at him now are nice.

dragonman97Member # 780

posted December 08, 2010 22:23
...and not being one with clearance issues, I still won't touch Wikileaks stuff with a 3m pole. Someone I know forwarded me a link to a completely unrelated doc awhile back, and I almost opened it, not realizing that it involved them. (And regardless of how 'open' this stuff is, I have no wish to be logged accessing it.)

Wikileaks really rubs me the wrong way. I suppose there's some legitimate purpose to some of the leaks, but much of it feels like a self-serving 'information wants to be free' thing without consideration to why the information was kept secret in the first place. As an open source guy, I fully back the idea of creating and releasing code for the good of all, and I have few qualms with the creation of reverse-engineered solutions to work around patent issues and to foster compatibility. That's wholly different than *STEALING* stuff, and freely disseminating it.

For damning documents that 'need to be seen' - there's responsible disclosure (such as the major news organizations that dealt with the Afghan docs). Just throwing documents out there 'because you can' isn't cool in my book. (I all too happily abide by 'because I can' for various tech things, but they don't run the risk of harming people or nations.)

As to press things: I still think our Freedom of Press is pretty good, but some of the source shielding issues under W were less than fantastic. I guess my main question would be: What country would be the best host? I imagine France...but we can't be /too/ far down the list. (I'm sure England is worse! )

And dearest Julian: See above. I'm a bit skeptical of the charges and the international warrants, but /iff/ he's guilty, well, he should be treated accordingly, though only for the relevant charges, not trumped up ones. He could very well have taken things too far, but it's worth noting that everything says it started out consenual. To me, the main takeaway is that he isn't exactly your typical 'creep in the park,' that folks love to vilify (despite the rational facts that 'familiar' folks are more often the culprits), so it seems quite likely that various governments wanted charges that could stick. I don't want to be too quick to declare his innocence, especially in the wake of Hans Reiser...

AshitakaMember # 4924

posted December 09, 2010 03:11
dragonman______If an bank employee stole customer data from a bank, this data being a list of names of people who cheat on their taxes ( and by how much) in other countries, should this data be made public, or should the police not look at this data. The data in question is private, and none of the customers in question are breaking the law in the country where the bank resides ( which is why the bank doesn't have to report these people). The customers are (probably) breaking tax laws in thier home countries.

What if the thief wanted a boatload of money from the police for this CD of data.

I use this because this is the the closest actual case, not involving wikileaks, that I can think of, should ill-gotten stolen data ever be made public?

TheMoManMember # 1659

posted December 09, 2010 03:26
____ This is not a can of worms, but a Swamp full of leaches . Most States have stolen property laws, how you are prosecuted depends on if you know the evidence was stolen.

spungoMember # 1089

posted December 09, 2010 06:24
I think WikiLeaks are very guilty -- they are guilty of copyright infringement. In the absence of any rights-granting licence, the rights you have to redistribute any portion of text you find on the net, or are sent via email by a third party, for example, are *NONE*. They should sick the RIAA on them.

Personally, I'm in two minds about the whole thing -- yes, there are laws such as the First Amendment, et al, but just 'cos you can do something doesn't mean you should. For example, I could say that the Maple Leafs blow goats, but I choose not to. I could really go on about how crap they are as a team, and how their undying popularity means that their general complacency will persist, resulting in never making the playoffs again, but I don't. I could rant about the millions of idiotic fans they have, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, would it?

AshitakaMember # 4924

posted December 09, 2010 07:26
Um, the cables aren't copyrighted.

TheMoManMember # 1659

posted December 09, 2010 07:53
____ Me wonders about wiretap laws, nope some fool posted them, that person is guilty of treason. Other persons could be charged with aiding the enemy.

quote:Originally posted by Ashitaka: dragonman______If an bank employee stole customer data from a bank, this data being a list of names of people who cheat on their taxes ( and by how much) in other countries, should this data be made public, or should the police not look at this data. The data in question is private, and none of the customers in question are breaking the law in the country where the bank resides ( which is why the bank doesn't have to report these people). The customers are (probably) breaking tax laws in thier home countries.

What if the thief wanted a boatload of money from the police for this CD of data.

In the US, such data could not be used in court as evidence so even if the police looked at it, they'd be unable to do anything with it that would stick. Now if the police had a warrant and seized the data themselves, it would be a different matter. Selling the stolen data doesn't change that. A good defense attorney sows doubt by ripping up the prosecutors case. Having fishy evidence ruled inadmissable is part of it.

AshitakaMember # 4924

posted December 09, 2010 09:38

quote:Originally posted by Xanthine:

quote:Originally posted by Ashitaka: dragonman______If an bank employee stole customer data from a bank, this data being a list of names of people who cheat on their taxes ( and by how much) in other countries, should this data be made public, or should the police not look at this data. The data in question is private, and none of the customers in question are breaking the law in the country where the bank resides ( which is why the bank doesn't have to report these people). The customers are (probably) breaking tax laws in thier home countries.

What if the thief wanted a boatload of money from the police for this CD of data.

In the US, such data could not be used in court as evidence so even if the police looked at it, they'd be unable to do anything with it that would stick. Now if the police had a warrant and seized the data themselves, it would be a different matter. Selling the stolen data doesn't change that. A good defense attorney sows doubt by ripping up the prosecutors case. Having fishy evidence ruled inadmissable is part of it.

The US bought the CD , and used the contained information not in court, but as information to know who to go after.

In other words, they don't care making public stolen private information as long as it benifits them. THIS IS PROOF!

The Famous DruidMember # 1769

posted December 09, 2010 10:17

quote:Originally posted by TheMoMan: nope some fool posted them, that person is guilty of treason. Other persons could be charged with aiding the enemy.

Other **Americans** could be.

Assange isn't American, doesn't live in America, didn't go to America to get the leaked info. America's 'enemies' are not his 'enemies'.

If Assange has committed any crime by publishing the leaked cables, so have the editors of many newspapers in America. They **are** Americans, so why has no-one gone after them?

XanthineMember # 736

posted December 09, 2010 11:19
Traditionally, in the US, no one goes after the press in a case like this. Their job is to report when something is handed to them and in exchange for that, it's hoped that they'll exercise some discretion (ie, if handed the nuclear codes, they won't actually put them in print). That's part of what has everyone so horrified about WikiLeaks - Assange hasn't demonstrated that discretion.

The people who leak to the press, however, can get nailed and journalists can find themselves in a tough spot if they're trying to protect their source. Traditionally, they've been allowed to do that, but sometimes tradition cracks. In the Valerie Plame case, the reporter who went to jail went not because she'd printed what she printed but because she wouldn't disclose her source.

TheMoManMember # 1659

posted December 09, 2010 11:58
____ Well according to Sprint/VirginMobile Mr. Assange's legions of pimple faced cellar dwellers has taken down their Network. This does not set well with TheMoMan. According to TheMoMans brother in Florida he is having trouble also.

CallipygousMember # 2071

posted December 09, 2010 17:04
While I, like most of you here, don't think that much of Wikileaks, or Julian Assange, the thing that disturbs me the most is the ease with which the US has fallen back into the Bush style rhetoric of war and terror. It is stupid to describe Mr Assange as being "at war with the US", because one man cannot bring down a banana republic, let alone the mighty US of A, and I sincerely hope that what it implies, which is that the US may have few scruples about the strict legality of any response it may take, is not the case. The rule of law, one of the pillars of democracy, is a meaningless idea if it does not apply to government as much as to the private citizen.

TheMoManMember # 1659

posted December 09, 2010 17:30
____ One has to wonder why, did he poke the Hornets nest? Then to brag that he has the trump card, once that is played and the world yawns, and goes back to Governments doing rich peoples business he will be forgotten like yesterdays news. Business will go back to doing business and governments will go back to screwing the little people and kissing the sitter-downers of the rich, nothing will change. He is a speed bump on the road to profits for multinationals, what did we hit? Nothing

StereoMember # 748

posted December 10, 2010 05:28

quote:Originally posted by Xanthine: Traditionally, in the US, no one goes after the press in a case like this. Their job is to report when something is handed to them and in exchange for that, it's hoped that they'll exercise some discretion (ie, if handed the nuclear codes, they won't actually put them in print). That's part of what has everyone so horrified about WikiLeaks - Assange hasn't demonstrated that discretion.

What I have read is that Assange actually let some newspaper get the information before leaking them, so they could advise him on what can be published and what can not. If true, Assange is really doing journalism - just the most disturbing kind: the one who won't publish falsehoods to please the ones in power. And as in Russia, journalism telling the truth are not liked. With a little chance, he will live, though. Some russian journalists didn't get this change and just got assassinated.

My conclusion? Men (and women) of power are the same all over the planet, only the extent of damage a particular one can do will change. Is there still hopes for Obama?

XanthineMember # 736

posted December 11, 2010 14:33
Okay, finally, some daylight on the Swedish charges. Looks like they aren't such b.s. after all...

quote:Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

Read that last sentence as many times as it takes to sink in. It was an eye-opener for me too. She said yes...and then decided that it wasn't okay and asked him to stop. He didn't. And in Sweden, they take you to court for that.

The editorial itself is mostly a burn on attitudes in the US regarding rape, but I've witnessed Canadians and Aussies and some Euros demonstrating similar attitudes on a couple other boards I frequent (and maybe here as well; I'm not in the mood to re-read this thread).

dragonman97Member # 780

posted December 11, 2010 22:13
Thanks, Xanthine, for the first real facts I've seen in all the hullabaloo. And...I've now just learned about more progressive Swedish laws - impressive. They are, after all, the same country that _doesn't_ go after prostitutes, but instead on their clients. (Which makes a hell of a lot of sense...)

As such, I stand by my remarks that "/iff/ he's guilty, well, he should be treated accordingly, though only for the relevant charges, not trumped up ones." Let him go to jail in Sverige, but he shouldn't get a sentence any longer than your average Swedish miscreant. That doesn't mean I have any love for his politics or irresponsible document dissemination, but the scaremongering surrounding him has gone too far. FFS, some people are treating him as more dangerous than the disappeared Sammie-bL.

AshitakaMember # 4924

posted December 12, 2010 01:36

quote:Originally posted by Xanthine: Okay, finally, some daylight on the Swedish charges. Looks like they aren't such b.s. after all...

Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

Well, I am surprised that that is not the law everywhere. In fact, I am rather sure that is the law in the US, and ver very sure that is the law in northern Indiana. ( I know someone who sat on a jury there and the whole debate was wether during the sex act the female party withdrew consent. ( In the end it was decided she didn't withdraw consent but decided afterwards she didn't want to have sex.) ( google the Nortre Dame rape trial (and dismissal) for more information.)

The Famous DruidMember # 1769

posted December 12, 2010 02:37

quote:From TFA:In the same way that Assange's document dump held a mirror to U.S. diplomacy, the accusations against him and the subsequent fallout reflect our country's overly narrow understanding of sexual assault

To be fair, the media coverage and public reaction reflects no such thing.

The prosecution, (as is usually the case outside the USA) is waiting until the court case to present their side, not playing 'trial by media'.

Almost all of the information about the allegations has come from the Assange camp, mostly his lawyer.

It's hardly surprising that the coverage is unflattering to Assange's accusers.